DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 thru 8 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “39” has been used to designate both the hydraulic motor (P0020] and Figure 2 (in and an element below left AXLE (Figure 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: In Figure 2, reference number “40” is not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a travel device configured to cause travel, and a brake device configured to brake in claims 1 and 6; a setting device operable to set in claims 2 and 7; and a brake operating member operable to adjust in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The travel device is interpreted to include “axles 26, 27, front wheels 28A, 28B, and rear wheels 28C, 28D” (P[0022], Figures 1 and 2). The brake device is interpreted as hydraulic brakes P[0025], wet-type multi-plate brakes P[0025], front brakes and rear brakes P[0025]. The setting device is interpreted as a dial-type switch, a slide-type switch, a push-button-type switch, or a touch panel P[0041]. The brake operating member is interpreted as a pedal, level or switch P[0035].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al Patent Number 6,052,644 in view of Crombez Chinese Patent Application Publication Number CN 107521476 A (translation cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 6 Murakami et al teach the claimed work machine, a working vehicle (title), and the claimed method for controlling a work machine, flowcharts of Figures 4 and 15, comprising:
the claimed drive source, engine 45 (Figure 1);
the claimed transmission connected to the drive source, transmission 65 (Figure 1), and an engine is connected to an input shaft of a transmission (column 1 lines 51 and 52);
the claimed travel device connected to the transmission and configured to cause the work machine to travel, the transmission is connected to the driving rear wheels (column 1 lines 53 and 54), and “the number of rotations per unit time of the driving rear wheels 84 can be calculated to detect the vehicle speed” (column 15 lines 33 thru 35);
the claimed brake device to brake the travel device, “The brake control device 70 inputs a brake operating signal from the vehicle speed limit control means 11, and actuates a brake control valve based on that signal to control the brake 75.” (column 15 lines 9 thru 12 and Figure 1), and “The brake 75 is generally used for continuously controlling a traveling vehicle speed of the working vehicle.” (column 16 lines 15 thru 17); and
the claimed controller, vehicle speed control device 10 (Figure 1), configured to
the claimed acquire a brake command to brake the work machine, “The vehicle speed limit control means 11 controls an engine 45, a transmission 65 and a brake 75 through an engine control device 40, a speed change control device 60, and a brake control device 70, respectively.” (column 14 lines 10 thru 14), “The vehicle speed limit control means 11 inputs a depressing stroke signal and a vehicle speed signal, and outputs the inputted depressing stroke signal to the engine control device 40 when the vehicle speed signal is smaller than the vehicle speed limit value.” (column 14 lines 36 thru 40), and “The brake control device 70 inputs a brake operating signal from the vehicle speed limit control means 11, and actuates a brake control valve based on that signal to control the brake 75.” (column 15 lines 9 thru 12);
the claimed determine a target braking force in response to the brake command, “when the CPU 20 outputs the brake actuating command data to the register 32, the brake controller 71 actuates the brake control valve 72 to apply the brake 75, so that the vehicle speed decreases gradually” (column 23 lines 54 thru 57);
the claimed acquire transmission information indicating a state of the transmission, “The speed change control device 60 is composed of a speed change controller 61 and a speed change control valve 62. The speed change controller 61 inputs switched vehicle speed data obtained when upshifting or downshifting corresponding to each speed stage, and the present vehicle speed data from the vehicle speed limit control means 11, and compares the switched vehicle speed data and the present vehicle speed data to judge whether the upshift or downshift should be done. When the upshift or downshift should be done, it outputs the corresponding speed stage signal to the speed change control valve 62. The speed change control valve 62 is a switching solenoid valve which is actuated based on the speed stage signal, and it switches the speed stage of the transmission 65.” (column 14 line 66 thru column 15 line 8), in order to upshift or down shift, the current state or gear of the transmission is required to be known to the control means, this would equate to the claimed transmission state;
the claimed control a braking force of the brake device, “The control gain changing means 12 inputs the result of the judgment as to whether it is the stable vehicle speed period or the acceleration-deceleration period, and outputs a control gain suited thereto to the vehicle speed limit control means 11.” (column 14 lines 54 thru 58), and “The vehicle speed change control device 60 inputs switching vehicle speed data, obtained when downshifting and upshifting corresponding to each speed stage, and the present vehicle speed data from the vehicle speed limit control means 111, and compares the switching vehicle speed data with the present vehicle speed data to judge whether a downshift or an upshift should be done. When the downshift or upshift should be done, the transmission 65 is controlled so that the corresponding speed stage is achieved. The brake control device 70 inputs a brake operating signal from the vehicle speed limit control means 111, and control the brake 75 based on the signal.” (column 29 lines 33 thru 44).
Murakami et al do not teach the claimed calculate an inertial braking force from the transmission information, and the claimed braking force is based on a difference between the target braking force and the inertial braking force. The braking forces would be applied to the speed limit controls of Murakami et al.
Crombez teaches,
the claimed calculate an inertial braking force from the transmission information, “In an exemplary vehicle 10, power transmission system can be applied to a power transmission system braking to decelerate the vehicle 10. power transmission system movement, the braking resistance wheel 18 so that the wheel and vehicle 10 decelerates. motor 38 and engine 36 is the type of power transmission system brake.” (translation page 4 paragraph 12); and
the claimed braking force is based on a difference between the target braking force and the inertial braking force, “using a combination of power transmission system braking and friction braking” (translation page 2, technical field paragraph), and “Then, the method 50 moves to step 58, wherein at least one brake controller 26 to determine whether the vehicle 10 is decelerated to a stop required total braking torque. among others, the request may be based on vehicle 10 speed, the accelerator pedal position, the power transmission system 14 of the reduction ability and mapping the input relative to a predetermined deceleration. those skilled in the art will understand how to configure the controller to request the total braking torque.” (translation page 6 paragraph 7). The combining of the friction braking and the power transmission braking provides the desired deceleration (translation page 7 paragraph 5) which equates to the claimed target braking force, the friction braking equates to the claimed braking force and the power transmission braking equates to the claimed inertial braking.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus and method for limiting the vehicle speed of a working vehicle of Murakami et al with the combination of power transmission system braking and friction braking to achieve a desired deceleration of Crombez in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, compensate for the friction brake to provide the desired deceleration (Crombez translation page 7 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 2 Murakami et al and Crombez teach the claimed work machine of claim 1 (see above). Murakami et al teach,
the claimed setting device operable by an operator to set the target braking force, “The control constant setting means 5 is used for setting a control constant, etc., which is provided with at least a set value input means 5a, and a set value display means 5b can be provided as needed. When numerical values are directly inputted using, for example, a key switch and a digital switch as the set value input means 5a, or they are inputted using a touch key with a display, good operability is offered. The set value display means 5b checks the above inputted set values, etc., and includes, for example, a character display or a graphic display, such as an LED display, a segment display, and a plasma display.” (column 24 lines 24 thru 34); and
the claimed controller acquires the brake command corresponding to an operation of the setting device, “The control constant setting means 5 outputs an inputted set value information signal to the vehicle speed limit control means 11, and inputs a set value information signal to be displayed from the vehicle speed limit control means 11.” (column 24 lines 35 thru 39).
Regarding claim 7 Murakami et al and Crombez teach the claimed method of claim 6 (see above). Murakami et al teach,
the claimed brake command corresponds to an operation of a setting device by an operator to set the target braking force, “The control constant setting means 5 is used for setting a control constant, etc., which is provided with at least a set value input means 5a, and a set value display means 5b can be provided as needed. When numerical values are directly inputted using, for example, a key switch and a digital switch as the set value input means 5a, or they are inputted using a touch key with a display, good operability is offered. The set value display means 5b checks the above inputted set values, etc., and includes, for example, a character display or a graphic display, such as an LED display, a segment display, and a plasma display.” (column 24 lines 24 thru 34), and “The control constant setting means 5 outputs an inputted set value information signal to the vehicle speed limit control means 11, and inputs a set value information signal to be displayed from the vehicle speed limit control means 11.” (column 24 lines 35 thru 39).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 thru 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 thru 10, 14 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/123613 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim limitations are recited more broadly than the reference application limitations. Additionally, the dependent claims patentably recite the same limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Related Art
The examiner points to Otake PGPub 2014/0303868 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Otake is directed to setting a target braking deceleration to an amount required by the driver P[0085] in consideration of the braking torque rotational resistance of the transmission P[0087].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights